1. Title, director and release year? ‘Flow: For the Love of Water,’ directed by Irena Salina (2008) 2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film? The film does a great job of not only presenting the audience with ideas of pollution, scarcity, and profit from privatization of the water industry, but also the economic, social, political, and environmental impacts that surround the World Water Crisis. Problems are identified and realistic solutions/developing technologies are introduced to give the audience hope that there will be life with water after the Crisis is over. 3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Economic: - Water is a $400 billion industry, only 3rd behind oil and electricity; such a strong dependence will make it hard to initially make a shift to conservation efforts, but will ultimately pay off since it’s a well sought after commodity - Companies that provide access to water are selling to those who can buy, not those who need; 1.1 billion of the world’s 6 billion people don’t have access to water/clean water - Companies providing access to water for remote or poor areas bring water to a community pipe, but then the citizens have to use pre-paid meters and pay up front for their water; the costs are enormous and aren’t feasible for those people who need it, but don’t have the money to pay for it, leaving them to reach out to dirty and tainted sources (polluted streams) Cultural: - More than 2 million people die every year due to water-related illnesses, and most are younger than 5 years old; the fact that water kills more people than wars do brings to light the strong depend we have, and the difficult challenge we face as a world to making it available to everyone and convincing those who over-use it that they basically need to share Behavioral: - Investors are not interested in bringing water to those who need it but cannot pay for it, so how do you initiate a cultural shift forcing people to use less of their own in successful countries to make it available to others? It’s not a matter of private investment, but rather public investment and initiative that will not only make water available to those who need it, but implement conservation efforts to keep their supply high and clean. 4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? - The clarity of water is deceiving to what is actually present: when one turns on the tap, they’d never would think that rocket fuel could be found in it; the chemicals and pollutants that are present in the water are great in number and have a wide range of effects on humans, animals, and the environment - Herbicides: Atrazine is number one contaminant in ground water, causing known cases of low sperm counts, increasing incidence of prostate/breast cancers, and biological mutations in frogs; the European Union limited the use of the compound because of the lasting effects it had, yet continue to still ship it to other countries for their usage; 1.2 million of 8 million pounds of Atrazine used returns through rain water - The fact that there are no regulations on bottled water almost scares me because the companies that are taking the water from small communities don’t give anything back, and only increase the exposure of chemicals/compounds to their customers by not screening the water and then putting it in plastic bottles, only further increasing exposure to harmful things; it’s a compounding problem, but the epidemic created by the aesthetics of bottled water is going to be the hardest hurdle in addressing water dependence - World Bank’s involvement in dam projects and general one-the-line corruption that occurs with some of the decisions that they make in allocating funds; not always the best long-term choice, yet their partnership with the World Water Council seems to be based on a monopoly; will they support the privatization of water and make it even less available to those who need it? 5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? The UN wants to reduce the number of people without water by half by 2015; it estimates $30 million is necessary to get clean water for all (which is three-times the amount spent in the US alone in 1 year on consumers buying bottled water); and while these hopes are high, I doubt 1) if they can do it in time, and 2) if the infrastructure they’re proposing is sustainable, or rather a temporary solution; are there going to be changes to current water deliveries, conservation and cleaning measures put into place, or rather just delivery? 6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.? - More information regarding charity well-giving foundations that raise money to provide wells for communities that are either dependent on privatized water, or have no water at all (e.g. Ryan’s well foundation) - New technologies that are being considered to conserve and clean water (e.g. living machines), and how those are feasibly implemented into all types of communities (geographically, monetarily, etc.) 7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems? - The audience best addressed is one that over-uses water, making them feel guilty for using it; creates a connection and personal action to maybe use less while there are people around the world that fight daily for even a few liters (which is the equivalent to washing dishes) - Possibly makes audience members feel like they need to be aware of the rising effects of the Crisis, and reach out to those who don’t have any access to water before it’s too late 8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film? - Water treatment with UV light; community stations established seemed successful, and price was reasonable: $2/day for 10liters; price pays for the materials to build/sustain the treatment center and a community member to maintain the system - Local levels to fix their own problems and implement solutions; then their successes can be applied to larger scale operations 9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? - Enhanced a combination of cultural and scientific literacy, but had the essence of preaching to the audience; empowering them to make some of the changes proposed would have allowed them to leave the film feeling safe in the Crisis - Hitting home the striking images and examples of remote locations that relied on community pre-paid pumps for their water were the main selling points of the film, generating sympathy and guilt; but providing feasible solutions for them would have been more effective (cheaper solutions, governmental involvement, etc.)
‘Flow: For the Love of Water,’ directed by Irena Salina (2008)
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The film does a great job of not only presenting the audience with ideas of pollution, scarcity, and profit from privatization of the water industry, but also the economic, social, political, and environmental impacts that surround the World Water Crisis. Problems are identified and realistic solutions/developing technologies are introduced to give the audience hope that there will be life with water after the Crisis is over.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Economic:
- Water is a $400 billion industry, only 3rd behind oil and electricity; such a strong dependence will make it hard to initially make a shift to conservation efforts, but will ultimately pay off since it’s a well sought after commodity
- Companies that provide access to water are selling to those who can buy, not those who need; 1.1 billion of the world’s 6 billion people don’t have access to water/clean water
- Companies providing access to water for remote or poor areas bring water to a community pipe, but then the citizens have to use pre-paid meters and pay up front for their water; the costs are enormous and aren’t feasible for those people who need it, but don’t have the money to pay for it, leaving them to reach out to dirty and tainted sources (polluted streams)
Cultural:
- More than 2 million people die every year due to water-related illnesses, and most are younger than 5 years old; the fact that water kills more people than wars do brings to light the strong depend we have, and the difficult challenge we face as a world to making it available to everyone and convincing those who over-use it that they basically need to share
Behavioral:
- Investors are not interested in bringing water to those who need it but cannot pay for it, so how do you initiate a cultural shift forcing people to use less of their own in successful countries to make it available to others? It’s not a matter of private investment, but rather public investment and initiative that will not only make water available to those who need it, but implement conservation efforts to keep their supply high and clean.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
- The clarity of water is deceiving to what is actually present: when one turns on the tap, they’d never would think that rocket fuel could be found in it; the chemicals and pollutants that are present in the water are great in number and have a wide range of effects on humans, animals, and the environment
- Herbicides: Atrazine is number one contaminant in ground water, causing known cases of low sperm counts, increasing incidence of prostate/breast cancers, and biological mutations in frogs; the European Union limited the use of the compound because of the lasting effects it had, yet continue to still ship it to other countries for their usage; 1.2 million of 8 million pounds of Atrazine used returns through rain water
- The fact that there are no regulations on bottled water almost scares me because the companies that are taking the water from small communities don’t give anything back, and only increase the exposure of chemicals/compounds to their customers by not screening the water and then putting it in plastic bottles, only further increasing exposure to harmful things; it’s a compounding problem, but the epidemic created by the aesthetics of bottled water is going to be the hardest hurdle in addressing water dependence
- World Bank’s involvement in dam projects and general one-the-line corruption that occurs with some of the decisions that they make in allocating funds; not always the best long-term choice, yet their partnership with the World Water Council seems to be based on a monopoly; will they support the privatization of water and make it even less available to those who need it?
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
The UN wants to reduce the number of people without water by half by 2015; it estimates $30 million is necessary to get clean water for all (which is three-times the amount spent in the US alone in 1 year on consumers buying bottled water); and while these hopes are high, I doubt 1) if they can do it in time, and 2) if the infrastructure they’re proposing is sustainable, or rather a temporary solution; are there going to be changes to current water deliveries, conservation and cleaning measures put into place, or rather just delivery?
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
- More information regarding charity well-giving foundations that raise money to provide wells for communities that are either dependent on privatized water, or have no water at all (e.g. Ryan’s well foundation)
- New technologies that are being considered to conserve and clean water (e.g. living machines), and how those are feasibly implemented into all types of communities (geographically, monetarily, etc.)
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
- The audience best addressed is one that over-uses water, making them feel guilty for using it; creates a connection and personal action to maybe use less while there are people around the world that fight daily for even a few liters (which is the equivalent to washing dishes)
- Possibly makes audience members feel like they need to be aware of the rising effects of the Crisis, and reach out to those who don’t have any access to water before it’s too late
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
- Water treatment with UV light; community stations established seemed successful, and price was reasonable: $2/day for 10liters; price pays for the materials to build/sustain the treatment center and a community member to maintain the system
- Local levels to fix their own problems and implement solutions; then their successes can be applied to larger scale operations
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- Enhanced a combination of cultural and scientific literacy, but had the essence of preaching to the audience; empowering them to make some of the changes proposed would have allowed them to leave the film feeling safe in the Crisis
- Hitting home the striking images and examples of remote locations that relied on community pre-paid pumps for their water were the main selling points of the film, generating sympathy and guilt; but providing feasible solutions for them would have been more effective (cheaper solutions, governmental involvement, etc.)